Re: [MBONED] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 26 October 2020 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1FD3A0EEE; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k73VaWj8zrly; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C33C3A101C; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 09QKdbGD031855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:39:42 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:39:37 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com
Cc: mboned@ietf.org, mboned-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201026203937.GU39170@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <157852198268.22611.624000399578080107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMMESsw0=kzd9zV9Z54Rqg7kvPxu=nTAqqkmM+B8jiXu=8k9sw@mail.gmail.com> <20200109164834.GE57294@kduck.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200109164834.GE57294@kduck.mit.edu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/l6wGc_GmJrNIqmUL6wxgPSUxUQU>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 20:40:00 -0000

I see that the -12 was posted, but it still refers to the obsolete RFC 4601
(so I can't clear my Discuss yet).

-Ben

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 08:48:34AM -0800, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 05:51:13AM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > On January 8, 2020 at 5:20:00 PM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Section 9 says that "[RFC4601], for instance, mandates the use of IPsec
> > > to ensure authentication of the link-local messages in the Protocol
> > > Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol" but I
> > > could not find where such use of IPsec was mandated. (I do recognize
> > > that a similar statement appears almost verbatim in RFC 5796, but RFC
> > > 5796 seems focused on extending PIM-SM to support ESP in additon to the
> > > AH usage that was the main focus of the RFC 4601 descriptions, and does
> > > not help clarify the RFC 4601 requirements for me.) The closest I found
> > > was in Section 6.3.1 of RFC 4601: "The network administrator defines an
> > > SA and SPI that are to be used to authenticate all link-local PIM
> > > protocol messages (Hello, Join/Prune, and Assert) on each link in a PIM
> > > domain" but I do not think that applies to all usage of PIM-SM. Am I
> > > missing something obvious?
> > 
> > It looks like everyone (including me) missed the nit that rfc4601 has
> > been Obsoleted by rfc7761.  One of the changes between the two is that
> > rfc7761 removed the requirement for authentication using IPSec "due to
> > lack of sufficient implementation and deployment experience".
> 
> I think Roman did pick up on the obsoletion, but it was buried in the nits
> at the end of his ballot position.
> 
> As you rightly note, this does supersede my specific objection to this
> document (though I still would like to know which part of RFC 4601 made
> this requirement, if only to know whether or not to file an erratum on
> 5796).
> 
> > This is what rfc7761 says about authentication:
> > 
> >    6.3.  Authentication
> > 
> >       This document refers to RFC 5796 [8], which specifies mechanisms to
> >       authenticate PIM-SM link-local messages using the IPsec Encapsulating
> >       Security Payload (ESP) or (optionally) the Authentication Header
> >       (AH).  It also points out that non-link-local PIM-SM messages (i.e.,
> >       Register and Register-Stop messages) can be secured by a normal
> >       unicast IPsec Security Association (SA) between two communicants.
> 
> And that seems like a good treatment of the situation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
>